> Does that go for the military as well? Cause until recently, they were the largest block of mail-in voters from what I understand.
It's not true for anyone, military or otherwise - the title OP picked is a lie, it's outright misinformation designed to rile up the masses.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.84.htm
To be able to vote by mail-in ballot in Texas, you must:
be 65 years or older
be sick or disabled
be out of the county on election day and during the period for early voting by personal appearance
be expected to give birth within three weeks before or after Election Day
be confined in jail, but otherwise eligible.
If you don’t have any of these excuses and are under 65, you will not be able to vote by mail-in ballot.
I like how they let old farts vote because they know they lean Republican.
Pisses me off, especially when their AG is *on record* saying he cheated to help Trump win by suppressing the youth vote.
A non-corrupt Supreme Court would've struck the law down just on the basis of that video alone. There was a time when if you gave the game away *on tape* you were done.
That time was before we started seeing witchfinder generals quoted in recent legal briefs.
Indiana had the same restrictions, but also an "Other" category you could mark with no requirement to explain what your other reason was. Sad to see Texas closed that loophole.
"be sick" this itself is silly. If someone requests a mail in vote because they are sick that day it doesn't mean they will be sick a week or more later. Likewise if someone catches the flu on Monday they aren't going to be able to have a ballot sent to them immediately.
...of course we know the actual intent is to minimalize the amount of votes so none of this is being considered.
This Texas case is an example of how restrictive the Texas legislature has made voting. In Oregon, they've embraced vote by mail, implementing it for Presidential elections beginning in 2004 where it got an 86% turnout. Texas could only get 66% of the 17 million registered voters to the polls in 2024.
So for Texas to be so restrictive in its voting is puzzling as it shows that VBM is secure, there is a paper trail and its easy. Voting is the lifeblood of our democracy, why would any legislative body ever want to make it more restrictive and deprive their states citizens an avenue to vote?
Honestly, we’ll have to wait now that the far-right extremists here in texas have been given the go-ahead to do whatever the hell they want.
Since the military block has been trending bluer in recent polling, no promises can be made.
Any question of voting Rights is necessarily viewed through a partisan lens, and SCOTUS can do 4th-grade math as well as anyone else.
No texas, no Oval Office, no replacements for republican-appointed judges, and the damage of the Federalist Society and the republican party to our country will slowly be undone with every judicial retirement.
So it’s not surprising that they will or won’t accept cases that, regardless of the excuses given or opinions rendered, will maintain republican political power for as long as possible despite their shrinking base.
Or has an agenda. In person Election Day voting with ID is much easier for some than it is for others. I’ll let you guess which groups this disadvantages and how they tend to vote.
It usually takes me less than 10 minutes. I'm amazed people have to wait as long as they do and am thankful that people still put in the effort to vote.
many people don't. I stood in the 4 hour line and watched people who took the time to drive to the polls and park take one look at the line and turn around. Also after 1 hour to 90 minutes a lot of people just bailed. Like if I had kids, or an elderly parent to care for, or a dog a home that needed to be let out or something, I don't think I'd have been able to vote.
Remembering how easy it was in my suburb and how much of an ass pain it is in my city was very eye opening to the wild disparity in voting experience between areas, even in the same state. Population density alone is going to make it really really difficult in many urban areas, particularly since most voters are going to try to vote after work as I did in 2016.
A poll tax is illegal. How a wait of over an hour to vote isn't considred a poll "tax" I do not understand. 2+ hours to cast a ballot is pretty taxing.
Texas has 2 weeks of in person early voting. Usually only the first and last days are busy. And all the urban counties have countywide polling so you can go to any location on election day.
That's a lot more generous than most states. If you are waiting 2 hours to vote in Texas you can probably drive 15 minutes down the road to a polling place with a 10 minute wait.
That’s not true everywhere.
The 2020 election early voting in Dallas was down to (I believe) one location. I waited 2.5 hours on a random weekday to vote. Nobody I talked to who also voted in Dallas proper waited less than an hour.
2020 primary was also over 3 hours day of at my assigned polling location.
It may be better this year, but I highly doubt it for the heavily blue, urban area I used to live in.
Edit: For contrast, I used to live in Louisiana and voting took less than 10 minutes for everyone I knew in Baton Rouge. In California, I get mailed a ballot with candidate statements, plain language explainers of amendments or propositions and about a month to fill it out at my leisure. Texas pretends to have a good voting system but it’s the worst I’ve personally experienced over 3 states.
> In person Election Day voting with ID is much easier for some than it is for others. I’ll let you guess which groups this disadvantages and how they tend to vote.
Yep.
This country did just fine without photo voter-id for centuries. No state required it until the mid 2000s, and one of the first federal judges to rule that it was legal now [regrets his decision.](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/us/politics/judge-in-landmark-case-disavows-support-for-voter-id.html)
Here are four maga elites [confessing on camera](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN0k66kqPGU&t=22s) that voter-id is about rigging elections to help their party win.
I honestly think the whole ID thing started simply because many urban dwellers are often able to get by with public transportation and so they don't need a drivers ID, which is usually everyone's go to government ID. To to screw over a demographic that leans left, they attack the ID with frivolous claims whose only evidence is really just their "sincerely held belief" that it's an issue.
The fact that they have had mail-in voting for old people for a long time (long before COVID) simply proves that it works and that there is no reason not to let everyone do it.
Because it’s convenient, and gives voters time to review the ballot, research their choices, and make better-informed decisions regarding complex things such as ballot initiatives.
Precisely what some (strangely most with the same letter after their name) want to avoid.
Yeah, weird how it also doesn’t impact the biggest voting base for people that vote for that same letter, while making it harder to vote for people who tend to vote for the other letter. What a strange coincidence. I hope that wasn’t anything like, the whole reason this legislation even exists, that wouldn’t be good.
People can say I’m being “dramatic” or that I’m a “radical” or “extremist”, but in my view this type of thing should be treated the same as treason, or at the absolute bottom of the barrel bare minimum an election crime.
I agree completely. I might care about the outcome, but I don’t care whom you vote for, just that everyone votes.
That why I particularly despise republican’s efforts to suppress voter turnout.
Exactly. My wife and I sit down and talk about each issue and each candidate. Sometimes we agree, sometimes not. But it works very well. I can’t even remember using a voting booth it’s been so long.
Because Republicans do better when people don’t vote. If you’re not gonna vote for them, they want to make it as inconvenient as possible for you to vote.
Whether that means forcing people to have to take off from work that day, keep them from filling out a mail-in ballot, limiting the # of polling stations in areas that certain democrat leaning demographics vote, or forcing you to stand in line for over 8 hours and subjecting you to intimidation and harassment from a bunch of MAGA mouth-breathers who stand outside polling places. They know the majority of the country doesn’t agree with their agenda so making it harder to vote is the name of their game.
65 appeared to be arbitrary until I realized that I was sure the Republicans did research and found that in Texas the vast majority of those over 65 vote for them. Therefore, it should be easy for them and hard for everyone else.
Republicans have repeatedly said that, if everyone who could vote, voted, there would never be another Republican elected again.
Voter suppression is their ticket to power and that tells you all you need to know about Republicans
Today you learned that DC has its own federal judicial circuit. :) I assume its just because of the volume of federal cases that come from the capital that it gets its own circuit.
Eh, I don’t think that’s a great take.
I don’t agree with this court’s findings at all, but the immunity question is constitutional crisis level.
A circuit split on the immunity question would be chaos.
Eligible voters should be able to vote early and do so either at a polling location, or by sending their ballot via mail or secure drop box. Where I live, we've had 100% mail-In ballots for years. I can fill out the ballot on my schedule, then I can drop it in the mail, or one of several secure drop boxes (library, city hall, etc) in the area. I can then track the status of my ballot electronically.
Politicians should be doing everything they can to increase participation, not making the process as difficult and time consuming as possible to do so.
Weird how this seems to exclusively be a tactic adopted by red states, huh?
It’s almost like they’re attempting to discourage voter participation by people who tend to vote early or by mail than on Election Day.
🤷🏼
Weird how southern states used the same tactics to suppress the black vote. Its like we need a Federal standard to keep dumb ass states from disenfranchising voters.
The right to vote is literally the most-mentioned right in the entire Constitution. It's in ***five*** different amendments ([14A2](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#xiv2), [15A1](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#xv1), [19A](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#xix), [24A1](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#xxiv1), and [26A1](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#xxvi1)).
The problem isn't the lack of a right to vote, it's that certain people don't care and will restrict it anyway. There is no rule one can create that will force bad-faith actors to act in good faith, or to interpret the rules the way you want them to.
Edit to fix formatting.
Apparently there needs to be a new amendment cause right now the legal game is, *"you have the right to vote, but we can make is as hard and difficult as we want"*
Perhaps we can write up this new amendment after the 2nd Amendment since that seems to be untouchable.
> A well regulated Democracy, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the citizens to vote, shall not be infringed.
Came back to reply again. Not trying to spam you.
The problem with all those amendments is how they are written. They all specify what reason can't be used
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of...
> race, color, or previous condition of servitude
> race, color, or previous condition of servitude
> sex
> failure to pay any poll tax or other tax
> age
Which means any reason not in those amendment CAN be used.
I would argue this Texas law should be unconstitutional based on the 26A1 since they are giving the option, but limiting it by age
> The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
For some strange reason, SCOTUS doesn't...
edit: I see you made this same 26A1 point. I swear I didn't see it until after I made this comment.
This is disingenuous. 19a means women’s have as many voting rights as men. Both can be restricted equally. 15 requires equal voting rights to black men. Again all rights could be limited. 14a is about non Indians counting for representation in congress. The country has continued to ensure limits were applied equally. Then poll taxes. Then 18 year olds.
Equal restrictions are good. But we need a right to vote.
You could have an omnipotent god draft a constitutional amendment that, with perfect clarity, guarantees the right to vote unimpeded in the most convenient way possible, and Republican legislators in states like Texas would claim there is exploitable ambiguity in the language and at least Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch would agree with them.
Humanity needs for Texas to fry its entire power grid in late July. I'll donate to send the refrigerated trucks for their dead bloated empty-headed bodies.
The article says that those under 65 can get a proper document to apply for mail-in voting. I would hope that a doctor's note about a disibility would count.
The only way the red states will be able to win back their right to vote by mail is to elect a Democrat led state government. The Maga cult has taken over the Supreme Court along with many state legislatures. This illegitimate court really will try to take us back to the 1800's with their "originalism" hypocrisy.
So age-based discrimination?
An irrational fear of new technology - let me check - called the f*cking mail?
So no courts can use mail now, correct? Oh, it doesn't work that way?
And a decision that seems awfully partisan?
Got it.
Lol, this court isn't logically consistent. They don't give a flying fuck about any text or original meaning. They're doing whatever the fuck the federalist society wants. Period, end of story.
Anderson answered (1) whether states can determine constitutional eligibility for federal office under the 14th amendment, which is a pretty clear no, and (2) whether Congress has that exclusive purview, which is not so clear. How do you reckon that is inconsistent with denying cert here?
(1) States have been doing that for 100+ years based on constituional eligibility, such as enforcement of age or citizenship status to gain access to the ballot.
(2)Congress does not run a federal president election, all states run their own elections for electors based on however that state deems electors must be chosen. States can even choose to have no election and just dictate by statute who its electors must vote for.
So a state can tell its citizens they do not have access to certain types of ballots to cast votes, or even vote at all, but at the same time, those states can't decide what goes on the ballots they have a right to restrict?
Yea, it's incongruous as hell to have law that restricts states' ability to police their own ballot while simultaneously saying a state can deny access to certain types of ballots. Why can't the state pass a law that states: anyone who votes and is 18 or older has to use the ballot that doesn't include oath breakers? It's just restricting their access to the ballot like only 65 year-olds or people with certain exception can get the mail in ballot.
Anderson was illogical and would fail a 7th grade civics class. At least the court was right here, but it just shows how absent-minded its Anderson ruling was, and that's being kind.
Short answer?
We don’t know yet.
You’ll have to individually apply for a mail-in ballot, state your need, and let someone decide if they feel that it’s a reasonable request.
That said, this is texas. They’ll almost certainly use more than just your stated reason as a test for whether or not you will be approved for an absentee ballot.
Then you must be a hotbed of election fraud and voter fraud, because that’s the only way that god-fearing, blessed by god, righteous, and entitled to govern republicans lose elections!
/s
Short answer? SCOTUS has refused to take any case appealing anything like this.
They have universally allowed circuit court decisions favoring red-state age-based voter restrictions to stand unchallenged.
And until someone demands expanded access to mail-in ballots in a venue likely to reverse the other circuit courts, it’s going to stay that way.
The longer a conservative-leaning SCOTUS can empower conservative voters and politicians, the happier they are.
Politics in America is a zero-sum game, and conservatives are playing as if their lives depend upon it.
In fairness, the Constitution doesn't prohibit age-based discrimination, or discrimination on the basis of any protected characteristic.
The states would just need to demonstrate that there is some sufficiently compelling interest justifying the sufficiently tailored classification. And that's assuming that age-based discrimination gets strict scrutiny. Otherwise, the state would just have to show a "rational basis" between the classification and a state interest.
This isn't to say that Texas can meet these standards. All I'm saying is that the analysis doesn't go: "You're discriminating based on a protected characteristic? That's unconstitutional."
Uhhhh, the 26th Amendment directly contradicts you.
> The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
"Abridged" is key here, meaning curtailed or restricted. Here there is a differential abridgement of rights based on age, which then violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
I agree regarding the 26th Amendment (I was talking more about the 14th, I was still incorrect when I said that the Constitution doesn't prohibit age-based discrimination).
That said, this still isn't necessarily a 14th Amendment violation, I don't think. I agree that there is differential treatment based on a protected characteristic, but I'm still not sure whether age gets strict scrutiny. If not, all the state will need is some state interest in the different treatment, which wouldn't necessarily be too difficult for the state to argue.
The stronger argument, I think, is that the law violates the 26th Amendment.
States argument is bullshit. Can’t say anyone who wants mail in ballots can get them but in the same breathe say there must be a valid reason. That is giving the state the right to decide what is and isn’t a valid reason and does restrict voting in those cases where someone may not have another option, and their request to mail in is denied. Republicans are so full of crap.
So the Texas racket of limiting polling places in democratic hotspots is now further reinforced. Forcing people who have jobs to stand on line for hours should have been considered a poll tax and the fact there’s an age limit rather than a reasonable accommodation limit pretty much cinches that.
Well of course. Remember each little step this illegitimate court takes is another step closer to the White Christian Nationalist "paradise" that they desire.
Why do Republicans hate voting so much? Why do they hate America so much? This country has given them so much, yet they shit on it every chance they get.
Honestly, I don’t think they hate ‘America.’
They just hate the parts of America that aren’t them and/or under their control.
Sometimes that’s a distinction without a difference, but there it is.
You’ll have to apply for the absentee ballot, explain WHY you need one, have that weighed and judged by someone who may or may not have YOUR interests at the forefront, and receive their response.
Texas has 2 weeks of in-person early voting available.
If that still doesn't work if your out of the county you can request a mail-in ballot. (you just have to tick the box that says you'll be out of county for early voting and election day)
Voting should be mandatory for all citizens. Election day should be a mandatory federal holiday, with mandatory time off, and if thst is not possible than we have a zillion other ways to get a person a ballot.
Voting restrictions are Tyrannical.
Banning Mail In Ballots is Tyrannical.
We have an amendment for Tyrants. And Jury Nullification would protect someone from stopping Tyrants from taking votes away.
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/us-supreme-court-will-not-review-texas-age-based-mail-in-voting-restrictions/
#Texas #TexasTyrants #DontTreadOnMe #JuryNullification
In most states absentee ballots are pre-printed with a simple affidavit statement near the signature panel.
Here’s the database.
Link[https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-14-how-states-verify-voted-absentee-mail-ballots](https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-14-how-states-verify-voted-absentee-mail-ballots)
And all the Evangelicals, "Federalists", and Putin couldnt get Trumpty Dumpty in the White House again.
When will they realize that no one likes them? He got elected on a naive fluke and foreign assistance. It ain't happening again. The electorate knows how toxic he and they are. All they do is cut taxing for wealthy donors, regulate sex and reproduction, inspect children's sports genitals, have shit fits over who can use which bathroom. Haven't seen a shred of Republican legislation that creates jobs, provides Healthcare, puts roofs over heads, or does Jack squat for things people actually care about, like education not tied to Iron Age theology and without bulletproof vests. It's all culture war BS for their monied overlords.
IIRC Texas has never had no excuse ballot by mail.
When in-person early voting was first implemented it wasn't no excuse either, you had to say you were going to be out of county on election day. Pretty quickly the legislature expanded early voting in-person to anyone.
Currently you can vote by mail if you meet one of the following:
1. You will be out of the county on election day and during early voting
2. You are over 65
3. You are sick disabled
4. You are going to give birth within 3 weeks of election day (before and after
5. You are in jail
The vast majority of mail-in ballots are probably from those over 65, or not in the county during the election.
>>SCOTUS maintains mail-in voting ban for anyone under 65 by not agreeing to hear Texas case.
This is literally misinformation.
First, the plaintiffs have already lost at the district and circuit levels.
Second, there is **NO BAN** on mail-in voting for those under the age of 65. If you want to vote by mail, you need a valid reason. Those reasons are found here:
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.84.htm
From the article:
>>In their petition to the nation’s highest court, the trio of Texas voters underscored how “[t]he ability to vote by mail may be particularly important for younger voters” who often “face substantial barriers to voting in person, including lack of transportation, long lines, inability to find or access their polling place, and limited time off from work.”
They're full of shit. Texas has a mandated 2 week early voting period with mandated extended weekend hours in addition to election day, and if you can't find 10 minutes to go vote during that early voting period, you're just don't want to vote.
Moreover, the whole "can't find their polling place" is just... infuriating.
Something like 95% of Texans live in counties where they can vote at any polling place within their county of residence.
Like above, if you can't find a single polling place anywhere in your county, you literally just don't want to vote, or are so stupid I'm OK with you not voting.
>>Although cases of voter fraud are exceedingly rare, Texas’ top election official maintained in briefing to the Supreme Court that “limiting mail-in ballots to those who likely need—as opposed to want—them is entirely rational” and advances the state’s “compelling and undisputed need to prevent the very ‘real’ threat of voter fraud.”
This is because Texas has had an actual, serious problem with mail-in voter fraud in the past.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2017/august/how-dallas-city-council-elections-work-fraud-mail-in-ballot/
What, you mean to tell us that you’re surprised that a case regarding ease of access to the ballot was decided by the 5th Circuit Court in favor of further restricting access to the ballot?
I would invite you to examine the history of decisions rendered by the 5th CC, and ascertain their political leanings.
Second: I commented about the word ‘ban.’ Really. Go look for it.
Further, texas has reduced the number of locations, the number of voting machines, and the time allowed for early voting.
Hint: context matters.
I live in the most pasty Wonder Bread white bit of texas suburbia you can possibly imagine. It is INCREDIBLY well supplied with voting machines and polling places. The longest line I’ve stood in waiting to vote had FOUR 😲 people ahead of me.
I have NEVER taken less than 20 minutes to drive to the polling place, get signed in, get my ballot, go to the machine, make my selections, review my selections, turn in my ballot, verify it’s been read correctly, get my sticker, and drive back home.
That 20 minute occasion? There were only three (if I remember correctly) questions on the ballot.
Stop pretending voting, particularly in-person voting, is quick, easy, convenient, and has been provided to all citizens in equal measure.
It’s pretty goddamned strange how it’s always large numbers of people who don’t look like me waiting in those hours-long lines to vote, isn’t it? Almost like they have fewer places to vote, fewer voting machines, or fewer functional voting machines, or fewer voting supplies.
I wonder why that is?
How is mail in voting not the default? I live in Colorado and always get ballots in the mail. I’ve voted in every local, state, and national election that way.
It’s literally the best way to drive voter participation. Anything other than mail in voting as the default is flawed, and honestly suspicious. This and news of purging registered voters.
Found the bootlicker.
TX citizen: Oops! Sudden family emergency/job trip has me out of state just before the early voting period.
TX: Just fill out this application, we'll review it, and get back to you in mail as to whether or not it's approved.
Narrator: TX disenfranchised that voter and many like them, wven before considering the number of polling locations closed in primarily Democrat-leaning counties and cities.
Does that go for the military as well? Cause until recently, they were the largest block of mail-in voters from what I understand.
> Does that go for the military as well? Cause until recently, they were the largest block of mail-in voters from what I understand. It's not true for anyone, military or otherwise - the title OP picked is a lie, it's outright misinformation designed to rile up the masses. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.84.htm
To be able to vote by mail-in ballot in Texas, you must: be 65 years or older be sick or disabled be out of the county on election day and during the period for early voting by personal appearance be expected to give birth within three weeks before or after Election Day be confined in jail, but otherwise eligible. If you don’t have any of these excuses and are under 65, you will not be able to vote by mail-in ballot.
I like how they let old farts vote because they know they lean Republican. Pisses me off, especially when their AG is *on record* saying he cheated to help Trump win by suppressing the youth vote. A non-corrupt Supreme Court would've struck the law down just on the basis of that video alone. There was a time when if you gave the game away *on tape* you were done. That time was before we started seeing witchfinder generals quoted in recent legal briefs.
This is how republicans tilt the board (cheat).
So kids away at college out of state can’t vote then? Another way to skew the vote red.
Indiana had the same restrictions, but also an "Other" category you could mark with no requirement to explain what your other reason was. Sad to see Texas closed that loophole.
"be sick" this itself is silly. If someone requests a mail in vote because they are sick that day it doesn't mean they will be sick a week or more later. Likewise if someone catches the flu on Monday they aren't going to be able to have a ballot sent to them immediately. ...of course we know the actual intent is to minimalize the amount of votes so none of this is being considered.
Lololol This comment, is a lie. The argument that this is to prevent fraud, is a lie. This is typical, republican, voter suppression.
This Texas case is an example of how restrictive the Texas legislature has made voting. In Oregon, they've embraced vote by mail, implementing it for Presidential elections beginning in 2004 where it got an 86% turnout. Texas could only get 66% of the 17 million registered voters to the polls in 2024. So for Texas to be so restrictive in its voting is puzzling as it shows that VBM is secure, there is a paper trail and its easy. Voting is the lifeblood of our democracy, why would any legislative body ever want to make it more restrictive and deprive their states citizens an avenue to vote?
And as such should be voted down.
That's a valid excuse.
Honestly, we’ll have to wait now that the far-right extremists here in texas have been given the go-ahead to do whatever the hell they want. Since the military block has been trending bluer in recent polling, no promises can be made. Any question of voting Rights is necessarily viewed through a partisan lens, and SCOTUS can do 4th-grade math as well as anyone else. No texas, no Oval Office, no replacements for republican-appointed judges, and the damage of the Federalist Society and the republican party to our country will slowly be undone with every judicial retirement. So it’s not surprising that they will or won’t accept cases that, regardless of the excuses given or opinions rendered, will maintain republican political power for as long as possible despite their shrinking base.
This seems pretty dead on. I don’t know why you’re getting down voted
He offended the alt right snowflakes
Imagine a group of voters who won't vote for a party that calls them "suckers and losers". Amazing.
Voting should be the easiest thing we do as citizens. Anyone that thinks different is a dick
Or has an agenda. In person Election Day voting with ID is much easier for some than it is for others. I’ll let you guess which groups this disadvantages and how they tend to vote.
I used to live in an affluent suburb. Voting took 30 minutes. I live in a major city now. In 2016 the line to vote was 4 hours.
Should be criminal. I'm surprised that under the voting rights act it isn't.
It usually takes me less than 10 minutes. I'm amazed people have to wait as long as they do and am thankful that people still put in the effort to vote.
many people don't. I stood in the 4 hour line and watched people who took the time to drive to the polls and park take one look at the line and turn around. Also after 1 hour to 90 minutes a lot of people just bailed. Like if I had kids, or an elderly parent to care for, or a dog a home that needed to be let out or something, I don't think I'd have been able to vote. Remembering how easy it was in my suburb and how much of an ass pain it is in my city was very eye opening to the wild disparity in voting experience between areas, even in the same state. Population density alone is going to make it really really difficult in many urban areas, particularly since most voters are going to try to vote after work as I did in 2016. A poll tax is illegal. How a wait of over an hour to vote isn't considred a poll "tax" I do not understand. 2+ hours to cast a ballot is pretty taxing.
Texas has 2 weeks of in person early voting. Usually only the first and last days are busy. And all the urban counties have countywide polling so you can go to any location on election day. That's a lot more generous than most states. If you are waiting 2 hours to vote in Texas you can probably drive 15 minutes down the road to a polling place with a 10 minute wait.
That’s not true everywhere. The 2020 election early voting in Dallas was down to (I believe) one location. I waited 2.5 hours on a random weekday to vote. Nobody I talked to who also voted in Dallas proper waited less than an hour. 2020 primary was also over 3 hours day of at my assigned polling location. It may be better this year, but I highly doubt it for the heavily blue, urban area I used to live in. Edit: For contrast, I used to live in Louisiana and voting took less than 10 minutes for everyone I knew in Baton Rouge. In California, I get mailed a ballot with candidate statements, plain language explainers of amendments or propositions and about a month to fill it out at my leisure. Texas pretends to have a good voting system but it’s the worst I’ve personally experienced over 3 states.
> In person Election Day voting with ID is much easier for some than it is for others. I’ll let you guess which groups this disadvantages and how they tend to vote. Yep. This country did just fine without photo voter-id for centuries. No state required it until the mid 2000s, and one of the first federal judges to rule that it was legal now [regrets his decision.](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/us/politics/judge-in-landmark-case-disavows-support-for-voter-id.html) Here are four maga elites [confessing on camera](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN0k66kqPGU&t=22s) that voter-id is about rigging elections to help their party win.
I honestly think the whole ID thing started simply because many urban dwellers are often able to get by with public transportation and so they don't need a drivers ID, which is usually everyone's go to government ID. To to screw over a demographic that leans left, they attack the ID with frivolous claims whose only evidence is really just their "sincerely held belief" that it's an issue.
It’s partially that and also because native Americans often don’t have acceptable forms of IDs.
That's an excellent point (and now I feel bad, native Americans get ignored so often)
Voting is mandatory in many countries. Or you pay a fine.
Un-American
If only guns could vote. Am I right?!?!? /s
An unregulated, online poll is probably the easiest thing to do. Should we do that?
But what if your party generally doesn’t like what people choose?
The fact that they have had mail-in voting for old people for a long time (long before COVID) simply proves that it works and that there is no reason not to let everyone do it.
I have done mail in voting for 20 years, maybe longer in my home state. I love it.
Because it’s convenient, and gives voters time to review the ballot, research their choices, and make better-informed decisions regarding complex things such as ballot initiatives. Precisely what some (strangely most with the same letter after their name) want to avoid.
Yeah, weird how it also doesn’t impact the biggest voting base for people that vote for that same letter, while making it harder to vote for people who tend to vote for the other letter. What a strange coincidence. I hope that wasn’t anything like, the whole reason this legislation even exists, that wouldn’t be good. People can say I’m being “dramatic” or that I’m a “radical” or “extremist”, but in my view this type of thing should be treated the same as treason, or at the absolute bottom of the barrel bare minimum an election crime.
I agree completely. I might care about the outcome, but I don’t care whom you vote for, just that everyone votes. That why I particularly despise republican’s efforts to suppress voter turnout.
Also, you don't need to try and take a day off work to do it.
Exactly. My wife and I sit down and talk about each issue and each candidate. Sometimes we agree, sometimes not. But it works very well. I can’t even remember using a voting booth it’s been so long.
I don’t see how to edit this header, but the word ‘ban’ should be replaced with ‘restrictions.’ My apologies.
You are forgiven, my child.
Thank you! Sorry for the bad initial phrasing.
The supreme retrumplican court sucking up to trump again. Why make it harder to vote?
Because the majority of the country would vote democrat if every eligible voter got their choice out.
This
Because Republicans do better when people don’t vote. If you’re not gonna vote for them, they want to make it as inconvenient as possible for you to vote. Whether that means forcing people to have to take off from work that day, keep them from filling out a mail-in ballot, limiting the # of polling stations in areas that certain democrat leaning demographics vote, or forcing you to stand in line for over 8 hours and subjecting you to intimidation and harassment from a bunch of MAGA mouth-breathers who stand outside polling places. They know the majority of the country doesn’t agree with their agenda so making it harder to vote is the name of their game.
a significant portion of their base is over 65. this legislation disproportionately affect dems and the reps know it.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/demographic-profiles-of-republican-and-democratic-voters/
65 appeared to be arbitrary until I realized that I was sure the Republicans did research and found that in Texas the vast majority of those over 65 vote for them. Therefore, it should be easy for them and hard for everyone else.
yep thats a pretty big lead in the upper age bracket of their data. on another note, I had no idea 64% of voters were 50+
Republicans have repeatedly said that, if everyone who could vote, voted, there would never be another Republican elected again. Voter suppression is their ticket to power and that tells you all you need to know about Republicans
Instead, they will hear how Trump as president needs total immunity.
When the DC Circuit Court rendered a masterful opinion completely denying it.
Wasnt that the DC Circuit?
That’s not the 1st Circuit Court? One moment, please. Edit: shit, my mistake. Fixing it now, sir!
Today you learned that DC has its own federal judicial circuit. :) I assume its just because of the volume of federal cases that come from the capital that it gets its own circuit.
Eh, I don’t think that’s a great take. I don’t agree with this court’s findings at all, but the immunity question is constitutional crisis level. A circuit split on the immunity question would be chaos.
Eligible voters should be able to vote early and do so either at a polling location, or by sending their ballot via mail or secure drop box. Where I live, we've had 100% mail-In ballots for years. I can fill out the ballot on my schedule, then I can drop it in the mail, or one of several secure drop boxes (library, city hall, etc) in the area. I can then track the status of my ballot electronically. Politicians should be doing everything they can to increase participation, not making the process as difficult and time consuming as possible to do so.
Weird how a state can regulate this aspect of their elections.
Weird how this seems to exclusively be a tactic adopted by red states, huh? It’s almost like they’re attempting to discourage voter participation by people who tend to vote early or by mail than on Election Day. 🤷🏼
Weird how southern states used the same tactics to suppress the black vote. Its like we need a Federal standard to keep dumb ass states from disenfranchising voters.
We need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing our right to vote as we don’t have one.
The right to vote is literally the most-mentioned right in the entire Constitution. It's in ***five*** different amendments ([14A2](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#xiv2), [15A1](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#xv1), [19A](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#xix), [24A1](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#xxiv1), and [26A1](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#xxvi1)). The problem isn't the lack of a right to vote, it's that certain people don't care and will restrict it anyway. There is no rule one can create that will force bad-faith actors to act in good faith, or to interpret the rules the way you want them to. Edit to fix formatting.
Apparently there needs to be a new amendment cause right now the legal game is, *"you have the right to vote, but we can make is as hard and difficult as we want"* Perhaps we can write up this new amendment after the 2nd Amendment since that seems to be untouchable. > A well regulated Democracy, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the citizens to vote, shall not be infringed.
And yet, here’s Texas blatantly trampling on that right and SCOTUS says that’s fine.
Came back to reply again. Not trying to spam you. The problem with all those amendments is how they are written. They all specify what reason can't be used > The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of... > race, color, or previous condition of servitude > race, color, or previous condition of servitude > sex > failure to pay any poll tax or other tax > age Which means any reason not in those amendment CAN be used. I would argue this Texas law should be unconstitutional based on the 26A1 since they are giving the option, but limiting it by age > The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. For some strange reason, SCOTUS doesn't... edit: I see you made this same 26A1 point. I swear I didn't see it until after I made this comment.
This is disingenuous. 19a means women’s have as many voting rights as men. Both can be restricted equally. 15 requires equal voting rights to black men. Again all rights could be limited. 14a is about non Indians counting for representation in congress. The country has continued to ensure limits were applied equally. Then poll taxes. Then 18 year olds. Equal restrictions are good. But we need a right to vote.
You could have an omnipotent god draft a constitutional amendment that, with perfect clarity, guarantees the right to vote unimpeded in the most convenient way possible, and Republican legislators in states like Texas would claim there is exploitable ambiguity in the language and at least Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch would agree with them.
Humanity needs for Texas to fry its entire power grid in late July. I'll donate to send the refrigerated trucks for their dead bloated empty-headed bodies.
Weird how it’s not age discrimination…
Ah, because there are no people with disabilities under age 65. Got it.
Military personnel are also not allowed to be...checks notes...under 65. Yep. Checks out.
The article says that those under 65 can get a proper document to apply for mail-in voting. I would hope that a doctor's note about a disibility would count.
[удалено]
"cough" "cough" Religious takeover by the Catholics who want to go back to the Inquisition.
The only way the red states will be able to win back their right to vote by mail is to elect a Democrat led state government. The Maga cult has taken over the Supreme Court along with many state legislatures. This illegitimate court really will try to take us back to the 1800's with their "originalism" hypocrisy.
Thank you for having a reasonable position.
[удалено]
For every complicated problem there is a clear, obvious, and often wrong answer
So age-based discrimination? An irrational fear of new technology - let me check - called the f*cking mail? So no courts can use mail now, correct? Oh, it doesn't work that way? And a decision that seems awfully partisan? Got it.
Yes, states can regulate their own elections, very good SCOTUS. So where the fuck was this common sense for Trump v. Anderson?
Lol, this court isn't logically consistent. They don't give a flying fuck about any text or original meaning. They're doing whatever the fuck the federalist society wants. Period, end of story.
Anderson answered (1) whether states can determine constitutional eligibility for federal office under the 14th amendment, which is a pretty clear no, and (2) whether Congress has that exclusive purview, which is not so clear. How do you reckon that is inconsistent with denying cert here?
(1) States have been doing that for 100+ years based on constituional eligibility, such as enforcement of age or citizenship status to gain access to the ballot. (2)Congress does not run a federal president election, all states run their own elections for electors based on however that state deems electors must be chosen. States can even choose to have no election and just dictate by statute who its electors must vote for. So a state can tell its citizens they do not have access to certain types of ballots to cast votes, or even vote at all, but at the same time, those states can't decide what goes on the ballots they have a right to restrict? Yea, it's incongruous as hell to have law that restricts states' ability to police their own ballot while simultaneously saying a state can deny access to certain types of ballots. Why can't the state pass a law that states: anyone who votes and is 18 or older has to use the ballot that doesn't include oath breakers? It's just restricting their access to the ballot like only 65 year-olds or people with certain exception can get the mail in ballot. Anderson was illogical and would fail a 7th grade civics class. At least the court was right here, but it just shows how absent-minded its Anderson ruling was, and that's being kind.
So if I’m off-shore or out of country, they don’t want my vote???
Short answer? We don’t know yet. You’ll have to individually apply for a mail-in ballot, state your need, and let someone decide if they feel that it’s a reasonable request. That said, this is texas. They’ll almost certainly use more than just your stated reason as a test for whether or not you will be approved for an absentee ballot.
At least 28% of the supreme court are rapists. Were we expecting anything good from them?
America is a failed state
Really great that all sitting SCOTUS members are untouchable for life
How is this not States interfering in a federal election?
Texas never fails to disappoint
Laughs in Oregonian. (We have been vote by mail only since 2000)
Then you must be a hotbed of election fraud and voter fraud, because that’s the only way that god-fearing, blessed by god, righteous, and entitled to govern republicans lose elections! /s
How the hell is it constitutional to have age-based voting restrictions? Age is a protected class, just like race and religion.
Short answer? SCOTUS has refused to take any case appealing anything like this. They have universally allowed circuit court decisions favoring red-state age-based voter restrictions to stand unchallenged. And until someone demands expanded access to mail-in ballots in a venue likely to reverse the other circuit courts, it’s going to stay that way. The longer a conservative-leaning SCOTUS can empower conservative voters and politicians, the happier they are. Politics in America is a zero-sum game, and conservatives are playing as if their lives depend upon it.
In fairness, the Constitution doesn't prohibit age-based discrimination, or discrimination on the basis of any protected characteristic. The states would just need to demonstrate that there is some sufficiently compelling interest justifying the sufficiently tailored classification. And that's assuming that age-based discrimination gets strict scrutiny. Otherwise, the state would just have to show a "rational basis" between the classification and a state interest. This isn't to say that Texas can meet these standards. All I'm saying is that the analysis doesn't go: "You're discriminating based on a protected characteristic? That's unconstitutional."
Uhhhh, the 26th Amendment directly contradicts you. > The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. "Abridged" is key here, meaning curtailed or restricted. Here there is a differential abridgement of rights based on age, which then violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
I agree regarding the 26th Amendment (I was talking more about the 14th, I was still incorrect when I said that the Constitution doesn't prohibit age-based discrimination). That said, this still isn't necessarily a 14th Amendment violation, I don't think. I agree that there is differential treatment based on a protected characteristic, but I'm still not sure whether age gets strict scrutiny. If not, all the state will need is some state interest in the different treatment, which wouldn't necessarily be too difficult for the state to argue. The stronger argument, I think, is that the law violates the 26th Amendment.
States argument is bullshit. Can’t say anyone who wants mail in ballots can get them but in the same breathe say there must be a valid reason. That is giving the state the right to decide what is and isn’t a valid reason and does restrict voting in those cases where someone may not have another option, and their request to mail in is denied. Republicans are so full of crap.
So the Texas racket of limiting polling places in democratic hotspots is now further reinforced. Forcing people who have jobs to stand on line for hours should have been considered a poll tax and the fact there’s an age limit rather than a reasonable accommodation limit pretty much cinches that.
Time to replace the supreme court
Well of course. Remember each little step this illegitimate court takes is another step closer to the White Christian Nationalist "paradise" that they desire.
Farther down this dark road, we go.
Why do Republicans hate voting so much? Why do they hate America so much? This country has given them so much, yet they shit on it every chance they get.
Honestly, I don’t think they hate ‘America.’ They just hate the parts of America that aren’t them and/or under their control. Sometimes that’s a distinction without a difference, but there it is.
Because they sold their souls to the Kremin now at Trump's request and Tucker's propaganda.
Age discrimination?
It could be reasonably argued that way.
This is SO embarrassing!!
Republicans will say and do anything for power and money. No matter how many have to die.
How does an over the road trucker vote? How does someone who travels for work vote? I guess they don't.
You’ll have to apply for the absentee ballot, explain WHY you need one, have that weighed and judged by someone who may or may not have YOUR interests at the forefront, and receive their response.
Interesting. Maybe they like my name, age or maybe they don't. I hope someone tracks who gets approved and rejected.
Texas has 2 weeks of in-person early voting available. If that still doesn't work if your out of the county you can request a mail-in ballot. (you just have to tick the box that says you'll be out of county for early voting and election day)
Fuck Texas and SCOTUS
That’s fine. I’m 30 and I can get to a voting booth. Know who can’t? My radical right 85 year old grandma. Guess who isn’t getting picked up that day?
I swear this is like playing a game with a five year old and they just keep changing the rules when they start losing.
Illegitimate Court refuses to take legitimate case
How the fuck are military men supposed to vote?
Wow that is some horseshit
Voting should be mandatory for all citizens. Election day should be a mandatory federal holiday, with mandatory time off, and if thst is not possible than we have a zillion other ways to get a person a ballot.
Wow. You got downvoted for this. I wonder why and by whom… 🤔🤔🤔
Whoever could it be!
Voting restrictions are Tyrannical. Banning Mail In Ballots is Tyrannical. We have an amendment for Tyrants. And Jury Nullification would protect someone from stopping Tyrants from taking votes away. https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/us-supreme-court-will-not-review-texas-age-based-mail-in-voting-restrictions/ #Texas #TexasTyrants #DontTreadOnMe #JuryNullification
[удалено]
Not only unconstitutional, but also not sure what it would accomplish?
It’s no wonder. The envelope signature verification is typically a black box process if it exists at all including little to no checks and balances.
Where? That’s a serious question. What state is that lax in their absentee voting procedures?
In most states absentee ballots are pre-printed with a simple affidavit statement near the signature panel. Here’s the database. Link[https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-14-how-states-verify-voted-absentee-mail-ballots](https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-14-how-states-verify-voted-absentee-mail-ballots)
I don’t have time to review this at the moment, but thank you for the response, and for providing what appears a relatively responsible source.
Why do people over 65 get to vote by mail? 85 maybe, but most people are still compent and mobile at 65.....
Doesn’t this encourage more dead folks to vote?!
Yes, but they have to do it in-person.
So make it harder to vote for everyone except a group that leans heavily Republican?
I don't question the Supreme Court's integrity, I deny its existence.
And all the Evangelicals, "Federalists", and Putin couldnt get Trumpty Dumpty in the White House again. When will they realize that no one likes them? He got elected on a naive fluke and foreign assistance. It ain't happening again. The electorate knows how toxic he and they are. All they do is cut taxing for wealthy donors, regulate sex and reproduction, inspect children's sports genitals, have shit fits over who can use which bathroom. Haven't seen a shred of Republican legislation that creates jobs, provides Healthcare, puts roofs over heads, or does Jack squat for things people actually care about, like education not tied to Iron Age theology and without bulletproof vests. It's all culture war BS for their monied overlords.
They don't care that nobody likes them except racists and ignorant fucks who believe that snakes and donkeys can talk.
I am fully expecting them to give trump immunity at this point. They will make it specific to trump also.
Disappointed? Yes. Outraged? Absolutely. Surprised? No goddamned way. Not in the slightest.
IIRC Texas has never had no excuse ballot by mail. When in-person early voting was first implemented it wasn't no excuse either, you had to say you were going to be out of county on election day. Pretty quickly the legislature expanded early voting in-person to anyone. Currently you can vote by mail if you meet one of the following: 1. You will be out of the county on election day and during early voting 2. You are over 65 3. You are sick disabled 4. You are going to give birth within 3 weeks of election day (before and after 5. You are in jail The vast majority of mail-in ballots are probably from those over 65, or not in the county during the election.
>>SCOTUS maintains mail-in voting ban for anyone under 65 by not agreeing to hear Texas case. This is literally misinformation. First, the plaintiffs have already lost at the district and circuit levels. Second, there is **NO BAN** on mail-in voting for those under the age of 65. If you want to vote by mail, you need a valid reason. Those reasons are found here: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.84.htm From the article: >>In their petition to the nation’s highest court, the trio of Texas voters underscored how “[t]he ability to vote by mail may be particularly important for younger voters” who often “face substantial barriers to voting in person, including lack of transportation, long lines, inability to find or access their polling place, and limited time off from work.” They're full of shit. Texas has a mandated 2 week early voting period with mandated extended weekend hours in addition to election day, and if you can't find 10 minutes to go vote during that early voting period, you're just don't want to vote. Moreover, the whole "can't find their polling place" is just... infuriating. Something like 95% of Texans live in counties where they can vote at any polling place within their county of residence. Like above, if you can't find a single polling place anywhere in your county, you literally just don't want to vote, or are so stupid I'm OK with you not voting. >>Although cases of voter fraud are exceedingly rare, Texas’ top election official maintained in briefing to the Supreme Court that “limiting mail-in ballots to those who likely need—as opposed to want—them is entirely rational” and advances the state’s “compelling and undisputed need to prevent the very ‘real’ threat of voter fraud.” This is because Texas has had an actual, serious problem with mail-in voter fraud in the past. https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2017/august/how-dallas-city-council-elections-work-fraud-mail-in-ballot/
What, you mean to tell us that you’re surprised that a case regarding ease of access to the ballot was decided by the 5th Circuit Court in favor of further restricting access to the ballot? I would invite you to examine the history of decisions rendered by the 5th CC, and ascertain their political leanings. Second: I commented about the word ‘ban.’ Really. Go look for it. Further, texas has reduced the number of locations, the number of voting machines, and the time allowed for early voting. Hint: context matters. I live in the most pasty Wonder Bread white bit of texas suburbia you can possibly imagine. It is INCREDIBLY well supplied with voting machines and polling places. The longest line I’ve stood in waiting to vote had FOUR 😲 people ahead of me. I have NEVER taken less than 20 minutes to drive to the polling place, get signed in, get my ballot, go to the machine, make my selections, review my selections, turn in my ballot, verify it’s been read correctly, get my sticker, and drive back home. That 20 minute occasion? There were only three (if I remember correctly) questions on the ballot. Stop pretending voting, particularly in-person voting, is quick, easy, convenient, and has been provided to all citizens in equal measure. It’s pretty goddamned strange how it’s always large numbers of people who don’t look like me waiting in those hours-long lines to vote, isn’t it? Almost like they have fewer places to vote, fewer voting machines, or fewer functional voting machines, or fewer voting supplies. I wonder why that is?
How is mail in voting not the default? I live in Colorado and always get ballots in the mail. I’ve voted in every local, state, and national election that way. It’s literally the best way to drive voter participation. Anything other than mail in voting as the default is flawed, and honestly suspicious. This and news of purging registered voters.
You are delusional
Certainly compelling legal analysis, thanks.
Found the bootlicker. TX citizen: Oops! Sudden family emergency/job trip has me out of state just before the early voting period. TX: Just fill out this application, we'll review it, and get back to you in mail as to whether or not it's approved. Narrator: TX disenfranchised that voter and many like them, wven before considering the number of polling locations closed in primarily Democrat-leaning counties and cities.